Loading…

The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study

Background: Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians’ perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue. Objective: To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by cl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health Information Management 2022-09, Vol.51 (3), p.118-125
Main Authors: Chen, Yang, Nagendran, Myura, Kilic, Yakup, Cavlan, Dominic, Feather, Adam, Westwood, Mark, Rowland, Edward, Gutteridge, Charles, Lambiase, Pier D
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-bdf8779e521db493e46765b23643fe529db32af647a89a655035fdd6b43e70353
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-bdf8779e521db493e46765b23643fe529db32af647a89a655035fdd6b43e70353
container_end_page 125
container_issue 3
container_start_page 118
container_title Health Information Management
container_volume 51
creator Chen, Yang
Nagendran, Myura
Kilic, Yakup
Cavlan, Dominic
Feather, Adam
Westwood, Mark
Rowland, Edward
Gutteridge, Charles
Lambiase, Pier D
description Background: Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians’ perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue. Objective: To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by clinicians and to gauge patient opinion about the importance of research into clinician decision certainty. Method: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians and their assessments of patients admitted from the emergency department between 01 March 2019 and 31 March 2019. De-identified electronic health record proformas were extracted that included the type of diagnosis documented and the certainty adjective used. Patient opinion was canvassed from a focus group. Results: During the study period, 850 clerking proformas were analysed; 420 presented a single diagnosis, while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result-defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed. The patient focus group were unanimous in their support of this research. Conclusion: The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable among non-consultant grade clinicians. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses. Implications: Increased standardisation of documentation will help future studies to better analyse and quantify diagnostic certainty in both single and multiple working diagnoses. This could lead to subsequent examination of their association with important process or clinical outcome measures.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/18333583211019134
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9449434</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_18333583211019134</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2540517908</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-bdf8779e521db493e46765b23643fe529db32af647a89a655035fdd6b43e70353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UU1LAzEQDaL4Uf0BXiRHL9XNJtlsPAgifoEgSD2HbHa2TdkmNckW-u-NVIsieJrhzZs3b2YQOiXFBSFCXJKaUsprWhJSEEko20GHn9iYcsF3t3lND9BRjPOiyLhk--iAMkLKoiSH6HUyA9xaPXU-JmuwgZC0dWmNe1hBH7Hv8Hxw1gdseuussdrFK3yDA6Tg4xJMsivAxs98SDimoV0fo71O9xFOvuIIvd3fTW4fx88vD0-3N89jw2idxk3b1UJI4CVpGyYpsEpUvClpxWiXUdk2tNRdxYSupa44z-67tq0aRkHknI7Q9UZ3OTQLaA24FHSvlsEudFgrr636XXF2pqZ-pSRjklGWBc6_BIJ_HyAmtbDRQN9rB36IquSs4ETIos5UsqGavHQM0G3HkEJ9_kL9-UXuOfvpb9vxffxMuNgQop6CmvshuHyvfxQ_APuSkoQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2540517908</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study</title><source>Sage Journals Online</source><creator>Chen, Yang ; Nagendran, Myura ; Kilic, Yakup ; Cavlan, Dominic ; Feather, Adam ; Westwood, Mark ; Rowland, Edward ; Gutteridge, Charles ; Lambiase, Pier D</creator><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yang ; Nagendran, Myura ; Kilic, Yakup ; Cavlan, Dominic ; Feather, Adam ; Westwood, Mark ; Rowland, Edward ; Gutteridge, Charles ; Lambiase, Pier D</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians’ perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue. Objective: To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by clinicians and to gauge patient opinion about the importance of research into clinician decision certainty. Method: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians and their assessments of patients admitted from the emergency department between 01 March 2019 and 31 March 2019. De-identified electronic health record proformas were extracted that included the type of diagnosis documented and the certainty adjective used. Patient opinion was canvassed from a focus group. Results: During the study period, 850 clerking proformas were analysed; 420 presented a single diagnosis, while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result-defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed. The patient focus group were unanimous in their support of this research. Conclusion: The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable among non-consultant grade clinicians. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses. Implications: Increased standardisation of documentation will help future studies to better analyse and quantify diagnostic certainty in both single and multiple working diagnoses. This could lead to subsequent examination of their association with important process or clinical outcome measures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1833-3583</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1322-4913</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1833-3575</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/18333583211019134</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34112021</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Health Information Management, 2022-09, Vol.51 (3), p.118-125</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021 2021 Health Information Management Association of Australia Limited</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-bdf8779e521db493e46765b23643fe529db32af647a89a655035fdd6b43e70353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-bdf8779e521db493e46765b23643fe529db32af647a89a655035fdd6b43e70353</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6032-3387</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,79364</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34112021$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagendran, Myura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kilic, Yakup</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavlan, Dominic</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feather, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westwood, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowland, Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutteridge, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambiase, Pier D</creatorcontrib><title>The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study</title><title>Health Information Management</title><addtitle>Health Inf Manag</addtitle><description>Background: Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians’ perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue. Objective: To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by clinicians and to gauge patient opinion about the importance of research into clinician decision certainty. Method: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians and their assessments of patients admitted from the emergency department between 01 March 2019 and 31 March 2019. De-identified electronic health record proformas were extracted that included the type of diagnosis documented and the certainty adjective used. Patient opinion was canvassed from a focus group. Results: During the study period, 850 clerking proformas were analysed; 420 presented a single diagnosis, while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result-defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed. The patient focus group were unanimous in their support of this research. Conclusion: The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable among non-consultant grade clinicians. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses. Implications: Increased standardisation of documentation will help future studies to better analyse and quantify diagnostic certainty in both single and multiple working diagnoses. This could lead to subsequent examination of their association with important process or clinical outcome measures.</description><issn>1833-3583</issn><issn>1322-4913</issn><issn>1833-3575</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UU1LAzEQDaL4Uf0BXiRHL9XNJtlsPAgifoEgSD2HbHa2TdkmNckW-u-NVIsieJrhzZs3b2YQOiXFBSFCXJKaUsprWhJSEEko20GHn9iYcsF3t3lND9BRjPOiyLhk--iAMkLKoiSH6HUyA9xaPXU-JmuwgZC0dWmNe1hBH7Hv8Hxw1gdseuussdrFK3yDA6Tg4xJMsivAxs98SDimoV0fo71O9xFOvuIIvd3fTW4fx88vD0-3N89jw2idxk3b1UJI4CVpGyYpsEpUvClpxWiXUdk2tNRdxYSupa44z-67tq0aRkHknI7Q9UZ3OTQLaA24FHSvlsEudFgrr636XXF2pqZ-pSRjklGWBc6_BIJ_HyAmtbDRQN9rB36IquSs4ETIos5UsqGavHQM0G3HkEJ9_kL9-UXuOfvpb9vxffxMuNgQop6CmvshuHyvfxQ_APuSkoQ</recordid><startdate>20220901</startdate><enddate>20220901</enddate><creator>Chen, Yang</creator><creator>Nagendran, Myura</creator><creator>Kilic, Yakup</creator><creator>Cavlan, Dominic</creator><creator>Feather, Adam</creator><creator>Westwood, Mark</creator><creator>Rowland, Edward</creator><creator>Gutteridge, Charles</creator><creator>Lambiase, Pier D</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6032-3387</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220901</creationdate><title>The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study</title><author>Chen, Yang ; Nagendran, Myura ; Kilic, Yakup ; Cavlan, Dominic ; Feather, Adam ; Westwood, Mark ; Rowland, Edward ; Gutteridge, Charles ; Lambiase, Pier D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-bdf8779e521db493e46765b23643fe529db32af647a89a655035fdd6b43e70353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagendran, Myura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kilic, Yakup</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavlan, Dominic</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feather, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westwood, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowland, Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutteridge, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambiase, Pier D</creatorcontrib><collection>SAGE Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Health Information Management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chen, Yang</au><au>Nagendran, Myura</au><au>Kilic, Yakup</au><au>Cavlan, Dominic</au><au>Feather, Adam</au><au>Westwood, Mark</au><au>Rowland, Edward</au><au>Gutteridge, Charles</au><au>Lambiase, Pier D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study</atitle><jtitle>Health Information Management</jtitle><addtitle>Health Inf Manag</addtitle><date>2022-09-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>118</spage><epage>125</epage><pages>118-125</pages><issn>1833-3583</issn><issn>1322-4913</issn><eissn>1833-3575</eissn><abstract>Background: Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including clinicians’ perceptions of the certainty around what is the best course of action to pursue. Objective: To characterise the documentation of working diagnoses and the associated level of real-time certainty expressed by clinicians and to gauge patient opinion about the importance of research into clinician decision certainty. Method: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of non-consultant grade clinicians and their assessments of patients admitted from the emergency department between 01 March 2019 and 31 March 2019. De-identified electronic health record proformas were extracted that included the type of diagnosis documented and the certainty adjective used. Patient opinion was canvassed from a focus group. Results: During the study period, 850 clerking proformas were analysed; 420 presented a single diagnosis, while 430 presented multiple diagnoses. Of the 420 single diagnoses, 67 (16%) were documented as either a symptom or physical sign and 16 (4%) were laboratory-result-defined diagnoses. No uncertainty was expressed in 309 (74%) of the diagnoses. Of 430 multiple diagnoses, uncertainty was expressed in 346 (80%) compared to 84 (20%) in which no uncertainty was expressed. The patient focus group were unanimous in their support of this research. Conclusion: The documentation of working diagnoses is highly variable among non-consultant grade clinicians. In nearly three quarters of assessments with single diagnoses, no element of uncertainty was implied or quantified. More uncertainty was expressed in multiple diagnoses than single diagnoses. Implications: Increased standardisation of documentation will help future studies to better analyse and quantify diagnostic certainty in both single and multiple working diagnoses. This could lead to subsequent examination of their association with important process or clinical outcome measures.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>34112021</pmid><doi>10.1177/18333583211019134</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6032-3387</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1833-3583
ispartof Health Information Management, 2022-09, Vol.51 (3), p.118-125
issn 1833-3583
1322-4913
1833-3575
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9449434
source Sage Journals Online
title The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T22%3A47%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20diagnostic%20certainty%20levels%20of%20junior%20clinicians:%20A%20retrospective%20cohort%20study&rft.jtitle=Health%20Information%20Management&rft.au=Chen,%20Yang&rft.date=2022-09-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=118&rft.epage=125&rft.pages=118-125&rft.issn=1833-3583&rft.eissn=1833-3575&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/18333583211019134&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2540517908%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-bdf8779e521db493e46765b23643fe529db32af647a89a655035fdd6b43e70353%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2540517908&rft_id=info:pmid/34112021&rft_sage_id=10.1177_18333583211019134&rfr_iscdi=true